In this article, we propose to critique the way in which a hegemonic understanding of quality in early childhood settings is imposed upon practitioners, families and children through legislated quality assurance processes. The reality of neoliberalism is played out in the establishment and maintenance of the Australian early childhood quality assurance processes as they operate up to 2015, and the definition of approved qualifications for those working in early childhood. In both cases a tightly defined, top-down approach is used to assure quality. This has the effect of limiting flexibility and de-professionalising the work of early childhood professionals. It is our contention that in this neoliberal climate, early childhood practitioners have failed to construct their arguments in ways that could be better understood by outsiders to the profession; instead they are focusing on how best to be compliant. Challenging these hegemonic positions may even be perceived as being ‘anti-quality’ and not in the best interests of the early childhood sector. We analyse the current context in Australia (which reflects international trends) and explore possible strategies to re-empower the early childhood profession.

This study reports the understandings of leadership held by 351 Victorian early childhood leaders (ECLs). Internationally, ECLs are expected to drive quality improvement through mentoring and modelling: a concept associated with distributive leadership. However, ECLs often move into leadership positions by accident and are ill-prepared for their role. Complicating their difficulties are extant perceptions of leadership: many follow models of leadership that prevent them from re-conceptualizing leadership in a new, socially constructed form. This impacts significantly on their ability to influence quality improvement. In this study, ECLs saw relational aspects of their role as particularly important, and were much less concerned with critiquing current quality praxis. They saw their role as important in supporting the development of high-quality practice identified in the National Quality Standards. The paper contends that ECLs play an important role in developing the profession’s own understandings of quality, and of leadership itself; thus, their lack of engagement in this debate is somewhat concerning. If EC is to continue to evolve as a profession internationally, we need ECLs who excel in quality improvement at the service level, and who are willing to advocate for the ongoing development of professional understandings of quality.

In the Australian early childhood sector the role of educational leader emerged as part of a very large process of policy reform that began in 2009. The position of educational leader was established to drive the quality improvement requirements of the reform, but many organizations did not establish these positions until several years after the reforms were introduced. Lack of clear role descriptions and authority make it difficult for educational leaders to fulfil the expectations held of them. This study examines the sense leaders make of the policy reforms and the street-level bureaucracy they perform to translate the policy into action. This sense-making and street-level bureaucracy is taking place in a neoliberal context where, we argue, the demands for professional discretionary decision-making are in conflict with the top-down standardization inherent in neoliberalism. Educational leaders have the potential to challenge neoliberalism through their professional decision-making but, in the Australian context, many are currently focusing on compliance with their street-level bureaucracy.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between early childhood professionals’ (ECPs) stress regulation (using salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase [AA] measurements), work engagement and the quality of their pedagogical work in integrated special day-care groups. Participants were 89 ECPs from 21 integrated special day-care groups located in Helsinki, Finland. The special educational needs of children (who were between 3 and 6 years of age) in these groups varied from language disorders and self-regulation difficulties to severe disabilities. Data was collected by using work engagement surveys, salivary cortisol and AA measurements and observational assessments of pedagogical work. This study is novel, in that it combines approaches from different disciplines to investigate work-related well-being among ECPs. Our findings demonstrate the close relationship between ECPs’ stress regulation and the quality of pedagogical work in teams. Whilst ECPs’ high work engagement was associated with better-quality pedagogical work, we did not find any associations between different biomarkers and work engagement. Our study highlights the importance of teamwork, not only as fundamental to high-quality early childhood special education, but also in supporting the well-being of ECE professionals. The findings can be applied in future studies and can be used to inform intervention aiming to enhance working conditions in day-care centres.